Posted on 04/04/2012 11:16:54 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
So any judge who rules that teacher led Christian prayer in public school would also be guilty of treason according to your “if its on the Commie list then supporting it is treason” formulation?
Supporting civil rights would also be treason?
Supporting or getting a divorce would be treason?
How about if someone says they are a Communist and speaks in support of Communism?
Would that be treason or them utilizing their first Amendment freedom?
Is voicing an opinion giving “aid and comfort” - or is it that actually giving aid and comfort is giving aid and comfort?
Is commerce between the States commerce between the States - or is it that any activity or non activity that could have any effect upon commerce is commerce between the States?
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
Joe McCarthy died at 48 years old in 1957, that was just 2 years after Edward R. Murrow assassinated Joe's career and person. That put an end to shining a spotlight on the infiltration of the communists.
He was best friends with Joe and John Kennedy. Both were very anti-communist. Five years after Joe died of liver failure, JFK was assassinated. I think that was the event that marked the end of the Democratic party as a legitimate constitutionally based party.
Shortly thereafter LBJ took their first step toward socialism and communism with his “Great Society” or “Great Socialism Plan”.
On June 17, 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that any Bible reciting or prayer, in public schools, was deemed unconstitutional.
You can connect the dots.
“Supporting civil rights would also be treason?” Supporting all men are created equal is not treason, insisting that some men get special attention such as affirmative action and the like, is Unconstitutional and therefore is an act against the United States.
You can connect the dots.
“Supporting or getting a divorce would be treason?” Supporting divorce is a personal decision, and everyone has that right, actively promoting divorce is an act that undermines or society, and thus is an act against the United States.
“How about if someone says they are a Communist and speaks in support of Communism?” Talking is one thing, taking action to impose a Communist Society is by definition an act against the Republic known as the United States, and thus, is an act of treason.
“Would that be treason or them utilizing their first Amendment freedom?” Non Sequitur statement. Ignored.
“Is voicing an opinion giving “aid and comfort” - or is it that actually giving aid and comfort is giving aid and comfort?” Voicing an opinion is a first amendment right, aiding an enemy, such as releasing information of an Allie's attack plans on a mutual adversary while promising another adversary to diminish our defenses, while putting entire generations in fiscal debt to yet another adversary is treason.
“Is commerce between the States commerce between the States - or is it that any activity or non activity that could have any effect upon commerce is commerce between the States?”
Any restraint imposed on interstate trade is an act of constitutional ignorance, depending on the intent, yes it could be construed as treasonous.
Sorry, but the Constitution is very specific about what treason is - and you are way out in la la land with what you propose.
Connect the dots? I did. You think differences of opinion about the Constitutionality of prayer in school or the validity of no fault divorce or any sort of affirmative action constitutes treason via giving “aid and comfort” to our enemies.
You are the opposite side of the coin of those who think that if the SCOTUS strikes down 0bamacare the Justices should be impeached and are traitors.
Treason is clearly defined in our Constitution because of loony tunes like you who would expand it to cover any action you disapprove of.
According to your formulation, and handy dandy #42- any FReeper who suggested that violence might be our only or our best answer (or at least an alternative) to government overreach and creeping tyranny would be guilty of TREASON!!!
Lots of FReepers talking about “Civil War II” - but because of #42 - isn't it obvious that they are all just traitors? /s
Moreover this isn't about me or my intelligence level - it is about your mistaken impression about what constitutes treason and your ignorance of the Constitution.
Treason shall consist of taking up arms against the USA or in giving its enemies aid and comfort - that would be MATERIAL aid and comfort to those of you in Rio Linda.
But go on suggesting that anybody who supports divorce, affirmative action, and doesn't think teacher led Christian prayer in school is a traitor - it immediately identifies you for what you are - a reactionary with no knowledge or respect for the U.S. Constitution.
Your premise is that any enemy that puts out a list redefines treason based upon those lines - but it is insane, idiotic and would often be mutually contradictory.
Iran is also an enemy. If Iran puts out a list saying excluding homosexuals from society is one of their goals - then would excluding homosexuals in OUR society suddenly become treason?
How many examples do I have to come up with showing how ridiculous your premise is before you will admit it?
Lack of enforcing laws, a non-action, is once again, not treason.
Once again, like a liberal with the commerce clause, you have expanded the definition to cover whatever you want it to cover - actions and even non actions.
Communism was a territorial foe - we do not base our system on opposition to Communism - that whatever they are for we are against - and if they are for something - and one of our citizens is also coincidentally for that something - it doesn't make that citizen guilty of treason based upon that ludicrous criteria.
Our laws are not led around by the nose via lists our enemies supposedly put out (where is the source for your amusing list?).
Our Constitutional definition of treason is not subject to numerous lists of goals our enemies put out - it is clearly defined in our Constitution.
Let me put it to you in a way you might better understand...
Conservative - the words in our Constitution mean what they say and are not expansive and plastic enough to cover whatever I want, at the moment, for it to say.
Liberal - the words in the Constitution, where they have any meaning of importance in our modern age, are expansive and plastic enough to justify whatever I, at the moment, want it to mean.
You have a very expansive and plastic definition of treason. Our Constitution has a very fixed and definitive definition of treason.
Supporting a goal that is also supposedly a goal put out on a list (you still have not provided a source for your list) by an enemy of the USA, one that no longer exists, is not.
If Iran says curtailing licentiousness is a goal, and the USSR said that encouraging licentiousness is a goal; then is the person who opens a strip club in the USA guilty of treason for supporting the goals of the USSR - or a patriot for opposing the goals of Iran?
Do you see how a list of 50 goals by the USSR isn't a list of 50 new treasons American citizens can be guilty of?
Do evidently have little understanding or respect for the definition of treason given in our Constitution.
Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record—Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963
I guess you didn't see that?
The rest of your reply is a far fetched extrapolation.
Ken Cucinelli, Virgina AJ was on EWTN’s “The World Over” with Raymond Arroyo.
He has been preparing briefs, if not actually arguing the case, but he has been in the Supreme Court Hearing Room itself with the Justices.
Paraphrasing:
Cucinelli: “I was mildly optimistic going in, but now I am much more convinced, after two sessions, that we have the 5 votes necessary to strike this down.”
Raymond: “The whole thing?”
Cucinelli: Yes, the whole bill.
So what?
Anything can be read into the Congressional Record.
What was it? Who read it? What was the source for it BEFORE it was read into the Congressional Record?
It was NOT from the USSR - some secret cabal uncovered and decoded - it was from the author of a book “The Naked Communist” by Cleon Skousen - who had no particular knowledge of the goals and aspirations of the USSR - but DID want to associate anything he personally opposed with Communism (i.e. civil rights, anti-colonialism, freedom of religion, etc).
So you want to change the definition of treason given in our Constitution to cover just about any action or non-action that might further the goals of our enemies based upon a not credible Mormon author's made up list?
Yeah - that is rational - in LooneyTune Cartoon Constitution land!
Your list has no credibility. It was not a record of the actual goals of the USSR and even if it was, basing what treason is or isn't on it would be subordinating our Constitution and our law to a list of supposed goals of our enemies.
There is obviously no hope for you to see that just because something would oppose the goals of Communism based upon your fictitious list - doesn't make it Constitutional. Just because something would further the goals on your fictitious list doesn't make it treason.
But I find it is like trying to convince a liberal that the Constitution doesn't cover anything the government wants to do so long as it is “fair” or “a good thing” - your mind evidently doesn't work that way.
Apparently to you, anything that goes along with your silly fictional list is treason, and anything that opposes it is patriotic - and nevermind the Constitution.
I suppose our founding fathers would have found a national health care law under the supposed power granted over interstate commerce to be a “fantastic scenario” - but here we are. An idea that is a good idea can withstand such “what if?” scenarios.
Your idea is a piss poor one based upon the primacy of a fictional list by an not credible Mormon author over our Constitution. As such it doesn't bear up well under questioning.
Thus your attempts to make this about me being “brainwashed” instead of addressing the obvious fatal flaws of your formulation.
Your list is fictional.
Even if it was real, it wouldn't redefine treason.
Basing treason on what the supposed goals of your foes are is idiotic - while basing treason on how it is defined in our Constitution is conservative thoughtful and wise.
Don’t forget to wash your hands before you eat your grapes and bananas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.